Yea, but here we don't compete with the government, as in countries like Canada, and we don't have lines, nor are we scheduled and forced to wait at the whim of an approved provider: we go where we want.
We have a non-socialist system, and yet social help is readily available: I know, it provided me the means to battle cancer; in fact, if your life is threatened, here we do require treatment: if it's not, it's very likely you can get help.
And all without mandating much; where they do that, clinics tend to go out of business, as more than a few doctors have told me: and they're not working for bajillions anymore...a lot of them are practically doing charity work, working for beans after having spent their life to get prepared. My grandfather, a doctor, doesn't want me to become one.
The U.S. doesn't have a perfect system, but it's got quite a good capital-social balance without needing the government to come in and kill it for everyone; but last time I knew anybody that needed help for anything, they didn't not get it.
Politicians calling for universal healthcare don't give a damn: they just want to fatten their voting bases, to the masses of idiots who think it's not going to be them paying for "free" medicine. There's a reason the U.S. leads the world in the medical field...and funds research around the world where they don't have the dough, including Europe.
Speaking of funding:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HCXqKEs68Xk&feature=related
: ) I'm not a Democrat (or a Republican), and I don't think this alone disqualifies someone from office...but it does show a greater need for scientific literacy, in basic concepts like "model organisms".
Personally, a women with a child who has down syndrome should be focusing on the child while it's in its formative years: don't think she realizes that it could need to dominate her time (vs. politics); down kids can actually be trained heavily, and very heavily educated, to the point of near-normalcy, which will save you time in the long run, and otherwise they're just very time-consuming: and often need regularity, and their parents: something politics and Washington cannot provide.
It also has interesting political commentary and history about how presidents and politicians have been portrayed by the media throughout the years.
Anytime people start declaring that such and such is dead or over, is a time you're witnessing stupidity...ideologies don't die, and when their impending doom is prophecied the counter-reactions upsurge to prove the prophets to be false, and idiots.
Well, isn't Canada already very U.S. dependent? As far as I know if the U.S. goes down or up...Canada goes with it.
A good (rarely told) look at Canada can be found here: http://www.hillsdale.edu/news/imprimis/archive/issue.asp?year=2008&month=01
Though I do have to say my favorite professor was Canadian. : )
Um, am I the only bio-guy who notices the data showing that CO2 increases preceed temperature rises? If the water in the ocean warms up (whether from the sun...which has been, overall (what about "6 years" of "cooling" gross?), warmer: and all it takes is a few years of higher E-input NET than has been the norm for a while...then the gas solubility decreases (by many magnitudes); thus even if the sun started cooling again it wouldn't matter: the CO2 released would insulate the planet to such an extent that more heat would be trapped and so more E would act upon the water molecules and continue decreasing gas solubility.
The worry-warts aren't worried so much about the planet as grants: and it's easy to play on fears to keep them coming to continue your research (on the side of your sensationalist popular-science career). Anyone who's ever done academic research knows the difficulty of grant-keeping after the difficulty of getting. Trouble is people start to believe their own stories and become religious about them. All the solar planets and bodies evidence warming right now (not just mars). Earth especially because of the systems and feedback mechanisms.
If we're so worried about Carbon emissions we can do two things: first, we can plant a lot more plants; increased carbon emissions induce an explosion of growth in nearby flora so long as other conditions are favorable to plant health: second, we could block the sun: but personally I'm against planetary manipulation in the scale of the planet's cycles; it's a bit like Gene therapy: we thought it was mostly junk until we started killing subjects by putting things into the junk. Science hates to admit ignorance, or to let loose of explanations in favor of admitting its ignorance(even when evidence demands it); just today that came up in genetics.
Who do these Alaskans think they are to have a right to the benefits the natural environment gives even as those dissapear? They have to adapt like anyone else. Obviously there are things in this world which more predatory which unfairly (and often illegally, or at minimum unethically) harm people's livelihoods. But to blame "global warming" and then energy companies for it...grasping. Uh huh: I want these people brought before the courts after this to face charges of abusing the legal system as is happening for the video game guy.
Oh, and here's the wikilinks page on what's going on; this is downright dirty...and personally I don't care for the "Bush appointee" crap (who cares...they're typically respectable candidates; OF COURSE the dems will be pissed, and liberals...and it'll go the other way with the next dem). Anyways, this is worth posting.
Now I have my own idea for wiki sites too...hehe. : )
At the risk of being flamed...
Like there was the theory of phlogiston, and the theory of geocentric orbit...I remember with amusement listening to the comments of an evolutionary biologist how brain-dead these idiots who go around screaming "the fact of evolution" and the "theory means more than theory in science" sit-down quick comments. (If you didn't catch that "sit down quick"...) He then proceeded to politely state that it showed these mouths were academically inept...they may be trying to combat other academic ineptitude, but nonetheless they're only proving their own, and their own ignorance.
And the late trends of justifying a theory's legitimacy for explanatory power only shows historical ignorance: many other dead theories also had significant, and satisfying, explanatory power. It's a bit like scientists railing against religion: they show not sense of nuance or understanding, nor respect: and show their ignorance. There are guys like Richard Dawkins fits here in some categories...but what's interesting about him is that he's a guy who actually goes around saying "of course people should read the bible...especially the KJV...they won't understand culture/history/literature without knowing that", (paraphrasing; i. e. a "cultural" christian, but not a faith-one...not quite right, but okay, at least insightful).
And by the way...the theory of gravity isn't so strong...you could propose alternate explanations (they'd be too nuanced for the lay scientist). I'd let you in...but I'm saving it for the nobel. : ) [Just joking]
?
what the hell are you complaining about...we don't want people extending ODT but COMPLYING with it! The same with Microsoft: they want...THEIR SOFTWARE TO KEEP WORKING WITH ANYTHING LABELLED UNDER THEIR SPEC! DUH.
If you change it up, you'd have to change your file and make sure it doesn't say ".doc" or any bull like that. Sheesh. The only reason I sound pissy is this seems like one of those ill-thought comments aiming to attack the big, bad, ogre.
When Microsoft tries to pull unethical crap...then complain. But don't complain about something reasonable. Wouldn't you guys be pissed to get an important "opendocument" file and discover someone decided to "extend" it so that you couldn't open it, or open it right?
I don't know if this in the above posts...there are too many to check every one. But here are three ways to reach wikilinks:
1) The IP:'
http://88.80.13.160/wiki/Wikileaks
2) The Belgium Site:
http://www.wikileaks.be/wiki/Wikileaks
3) I forget this domain's country:
http://wikileaks.cx/wiki/Wikileaks
And all are in english. Blog this overreaching of a judge's power, and post these links on your blogs! (Just maybe not on U. S. servers...). : )
Well...
When the "new technology" takes more energy to produce it than it saves...sadly there's a little rule that applies: to get energy you lose some. Remember the quacks saying "free energy". There's something like it, but it takes energy to make...it's called fossil fuels. The only diff is we didn't make it; compression by the earth upon certain materials did.
Anyways, there's a little-known piece to this globabl-warming puzzle; besides the fact that the other plantes (like Mars) are getting warmer (and sure...you could find other explanations....uh huh) and besides the fact that the earth is actually in an up-swing from being in a low point (I know, I know, the skeptics always remind us of the "global cooling" scare...but before it was on radio, I remember the older folks talking about that one), beside the agricultural data around the globe suggests that colder regions used to be much warmer...the CO2 levels are PRECEEDED by the temperature rise in the oceans.:) The best part about this is that it's basic chemistry: gas solubility in aqueous solution decrease with rise in temperature for [most] gases; I say "most" because...there *could* be a freak gas or two just as there are freak solids that don't obey solid solubility rules. We are definately NOT heating the oceans...we can greatly affect the air: air is easy to heat...but masses of water are not. The Sun, however, is heating-up: and as climatologists explain-away those changes as "too minute" they also forget to mention (unless they just don't know) how tiny changes in a system can produce massive changes. This I appreciate more because of cell biology (bio major) than environmental sciences but I find it more and more applicable to environmental systems.
Anyways, I remember when one climate scientist changed his mind on global warming how he received death threats...at my university we have a skeptic too: and he doesn't passionately dogmatize on this subject with religious zeal like the fanatics either; he just looks at data and says "so it's saying..."..There's also a lab where they monitor how much light we receive every year and the angle and intensities...around the world (it's very interesting stuff: they collect several gigs of data a year from the collectors) and I know a guy who does this kind of work and who is working on using satellites for monitoring/recording/testing this kind of stuff. So before I listen to those who have their life's work and passions invested in all this...I'll go to the guys who actually collect the data with detachment from their emotions...and who aren't looking for the grant money popular "science" might bring them. : ) Cheers and flame away.
Despite the mainstream Media's reports, we're not in a recession in the U. S., however the real-estate market bubble is deflating after years of artificially controlled interest rates; they call it a "credit crunch" here, but it's not exactly true: the market was awash in too many loans, and too many unscrupulous characters too eager to loan money (even violating laws). I know this because of family in the mortgage business (happily they themselves would block and fight illegal, destructive, take-advantage-of-people loans, but they saw too many others going around).
Now, however, people are stuck in houses with the value falling because of the real-estate bubble that jacked-up the values of the properties, sitting on loans they can't afford to pay, and they want out. Insurance companies note that in these kinds of conditions pertaining to real-estate that arson claims rise...and a lot of fraud is initiated; the cases of fraud have already begun to set-in, though comically fraudsters often don't realize that the mortgage company gets the first go at any insurance money they get...if the companies don't figure it out. [mocking here.] Then IF there is ANY left...they get that.
Thus I wonder if this has anything to do with this...are these people with mortgages and failing business models, or can they documentarily prove that these machines went boom? I know laptops have been caught before...and Dell wouldn't suprise me here (my laptop from Dell has 6 fans and still overheats...it takes FREEZING air sucking-in to the intakes to cool it). If any are in bum circumstances and some of these cases are true, I wonder if some will try to replicate these cases to make claims? Then go after the computer makers while they're at it.
Who knows more?
VBA is a highly used language (as you know) so that this isn't a small thing. In business school MS products are praised and exalted. Programmers curse it...forgetting that the point is CEOs, not technicians; this keeps MS ahead. I constantly hear people complain how one is able to do one thing 10 different ways...but in business they LOVE this; LOVE LOVE LOVE this.
This move isn't so stupid, however, because too many companies are dependent on this language and MS products. What it's really doing, though, is shooting Apple in the foot: MS was going to drop Apple support for office but Apple begged and worked-out an extension. This will remove the possibility for many businesses who stick with office to utilize Mac as a platform; especially since other businesses are unlikely to support a house with applescript on Office.
If MS drops VBA it's because they feel they have something better to offer...possibly something worth more to programmers while they're at it; don't forget that whole businesses do nothing but write macros and VBA-based software; I know several guys who do this.
In the meantime OpenOffice ought to start reverse-engineering VBA, I think; if it's going to die then we won't have to worry about it changing...and a LOT of firms would probably, very likely, appreciate not losing years of work, (or being able to offer it on practically any platform AND advertise that they're giving-away a compatible office suite!), though maybe MS's new tools will have migration features/assistance to translate. Anyone know?
First...if I mucked-up a guy's verbiage I apologize: not improbable.
Second: the oldest written hebrew isn't in Aramaic Script (what you'd see in a Torah Scroll in Synagogues), but a more ancient form of paleo-Hebrew, though it's aleph-bet like Aramaic Square Scriipt. This form is present in the Samaritan Pentateuch...unfortunately their Pentateuch wasn't carefully copied, either, but that's a textual aside: it's the script that's important for our consideration of age. Some of the oldest portions of the OT extant are inscriptions on alters...one even surrounded by a burial-ground of animal skeletons (sacrifices) and egyptian scarabs.
The Historical Books (Chronicles, Kings, etc.) are also archeologically precise as well and significant which suggests contemporary writing.
The Book Daniel is a good example of a writing contemporary with Cyrus the Great (see "Stele of Cyrus") and the Hebrew in the Pentateuch is a purer, but less versatile/more rigid form than the books which would have been written post-exile...which differ in Hebrew style, morphology, lexical use, and etc...the grammar is affected by Aramaic there, and there are many aramaicisms (with few if, arguably, any in the pre-exhilic OT). Further, the OT written during the time of Exile consists of portions of Daniel in ARAMAIC, while portions of the Prophets are all Hebrew (there were still Jews in Jerusalem under the rule of vassal kings) but addressed to even those Jews in Babylon. Post-exhilic texts are quite interesting since writers such as Isaiah write in a lofty and high literary style yet utilize Aramaic expressions so meaningfully: such a writer shows great literary ability in the Hebrew yet knowing his audience is writing, also, for them.
Two things:
If you're referring to the Hebrew and Aramaic, then that's upwards of 5/6000 years ago. It used to be that since "Christianity" was such a hot topic this dating would be denied...this is changing (I go to a public, highly secular, university and have learned that historians are verifying the Bible as incresingly valid as a Historical document for many things, just as any other ancient documents is used).
The Hebrew/Aramaic is also highly structured and often beautifully executed: it's chock-full of literary devices, assonnance, consanance, and etc...it reads beautifully (have a Jews fluent in BIBLICAL Hebrew/Aramaic read it to you sometime as lit), hidden message (God's name hidden with exact spacing between each letter in the book of Esther which does not mention Him up-front is one example...and this is not only structured, but strategic, the Name being forward after actions by Jews, and backwards after actions by gentiles).
The reason I even mention this is because you had the "3000" years thing.
More likely, though, you refer to the NT. Well...that too bears the mark of Hebrew literature. Even the rather colloquial (in Greek) gospels are structured around themes and make allusions to the Hebrew scriptues and constant use of literary features...and I don't suggest the intent is to be "just literature"; to them it's literature just as the journals are literature to scientists, the newspaper of the social/human condition at present, as well as the speech which itself utilizes structure and literary device; term papers do too. The difference is that the Bible's is on another level, and it's intended: it's often so complex that it's mind-boggling, and it's a treat to study if you're into literature.
More than that, though, these "simple" fishermen and shepherds...would have probably committed the entire Hebrew OT as well as their trade and the inherent complexities in life back then to memory by the time they were 16. Some parts of the NT are apparently not understood by today's readers because an OT quote will be made but not all of it...the Jews would leave-off and let the listener's minds fill-in the rest. It was, for a long time, though that the Jews of early NT times were nearly wholly illiterate in Hebrew...but now we're learning this is a misapprehension; and besides, the non-Hebrew speakers would have known the Septuagint translation anyways.
To put it lightly: these weren't, necessary, mental-simpletons: Romans, for instance, is a book which Greek-experts world-wide grapple with because of its complexity, illusions, metaphors, train of though, layering, and so on...the tiny letter "Jude" is itself full of allusions to literature, Jewish History, and more, so that its signification requires extensive familiarity and understanding to grasp.
Now believe it or not: my major is biology, my minor is...too minor to remember, just one extra class, and my other minor is spanish: my side-classes are all the courses I have for pre-med, however my hobby is studying just about everything, especially relating to ideologies, religion, history, linguistics & languages, and literature (which I wish text-critics in all fields would learn more of so they wouldn't naively strike-out literary features when they think they're just merely repetition or something).
Hope this helps. : )
That would be Catholicism: the term "priest" is a technical term from the OT applying to a certain tribe (Levites) while the NT takes this technical term and applies it to all believers in Jesus. Catholicism takes the Bible and trumps it with its own teachings: it has no need of Scriptures: it writes its own.
Meanwhile the NT itself commends those who didn't blindly accept the teachings of some preacher, which amongst the Biblically-literate is calling "being Berean", because Paul wrote that the Bereans were "more noble" because they checked the scriptures everday to see if the things he said were so: this is what I call being accountable to your premise, and it requries consistancy.
It's conflation to say Catholics (to whom your statements allude/refer) have any fear of discrediting the Bible when they don't even read it, and even arrogantly claim it's God's Word, yet then that men's words can trump it; take it from a guy with an Irish-Catholic family-background. I'm amazed at the contemporary religious and scientific ignorance of our day; and saddened by the attitude of learning only until satisfaction whether or not one's understanding is whole, accurate, or even understanding: people believe what they want to push what they want by twising, conflating, and dropping whatever information they want. Sheesh. : (
I thought this was interesting since wasn't Harvard originally created to educated Preachers so they wouldn't be uneducated? I believe it originally had entrance requirements of ability to read Greek and Latin (the second since studyign latin is extremely helpful to studying Greek and vice-versa). I didn't think the comment (that I'm replying to) was insightful, helpful, or even very funny (try again), but what it touched on is some irony.
(Since Harvard was considered a failure from the beginning they founded Yale...which has never let Harvard forget it.)
By the way, you used "immaculate" adjectively toward "editing" while the usual and proper use of the term in "conception" is a Catholic dogma and tradition which claims mary herself was "immaculate" at the conception, meaning that by giving birth to the divine she must be "sinless"; nevermind that this is theological naive or scripturally iconsistant, though I intent no offense to Rome...it's an old dogma, "Mary the Mother of God" that'll probably never died which developed around the same time as "James the Brother of God" as emphasizing "brother" amongst soem groups: the second died-out, the first became strengthened even to claim that Mary was perpetually a virgin after the birth...although show a Catholic the second historical statement and they might freak, kill you, announce your excommunication, or refuse to speak to you...or pray for your ignorance as a friend of theirs hoping you'll see the light of Rome. Ick.
First I'd like to apologize: this is my third comment on this post.
Second: no offense, but that's a lame statement. Scientists borrow representations from one another all the time...so does media. This video is taken, re-edited, and applied in various courses and disciplines all the time as well. It also permits, by its license, educational use: and it was a presentation at a university organized by a student-group.
I don't know enough about DI to dicuss their merits or pitfalls, but nevertheless I've seen this video around for a little over a year now and have never seen anyone get attacked for use until this controversial group used it in a standard presentation...to an unsympathetic audience no less. My major is biology, but I'm a guy considering such polemical rhetoric against those who disagree (however ignorant or idiotic they're perceived to be) as represented in the comments on this post and the blog it refers to as a good reason to switch BACK to business...at least there there's (sometimes) some remnants of professionalism (unless you're Jobs--though Macs themselves do rock).
The representation of this piece of art is that of standard knowledge: I would have been more concerned if they'd misrepresented Harvard by leaving the logo/narrations intact: which I've never seen even in evolution, genetics, or physiology. So everyone: no grasping just to get kicks to attack somebody. Discourse rationally and with respect.
This particular instance of dubbing wouldn't count as misrepresentation. First, the DI guys aren't wholly idiots, just very disliked and diasgreed with. Second, this would count as two things: pointing-out particulars that the Harvard group may have, or may not have, pointed out, and then as interpretation: yet I don't even know that they contradicted the other group: this particular video has been popular in anything science-related since its release and though I've never watched the full thing I've seen in used in several presentations at my University.
Actually I the blog this post links to has some comments on this: it is an educational event...whether or not people like the kind of education. The material was also posted freely, not sold: and I've also seen this video used in my University courses: it's fairly helpful for certain topics in classes such as physiology. Yes, they can claim this to be "educational": lol or not.
Other than that the video can be found here: http://www.studiodaily.com/main/searchlist/6850.html
Enjoy. : )
I'm grateful for your statements about "belief" in science, although there are presupositions in many parts of it which are often unavoidable (it seems).
Careful, though...even in the scientific literature, evolution is not an "incontrovertible fact". In fact, is heatedly debated...and all the "ID is this or that" tit-for-tat I see here is dismissable...some of the ID proponents were formerly some of the starkest defenders of evolution: one of them men considered "the" defender was a man who spent his life trying to refine a way proteins could form in the absence of molecular machines and all the processes and steps required in a cell for the most basic constituents of life.
Today consumers get sterile, pathetic, version of these things presented as hammered-out truth, brilliantly presented I might add, but hardly worthy of any real place of discussion in the scientific community: and even among evolutionary biologists there are many people anymore who don't really "believe" in evolution...they just have no other explanation. Further, ID has its merits in explanation just as evolution, some argue more merits...and typically such scientists who propose such are under much greater scrutiny and have to have impeccable method to get by without character assasination.
The point is, well, what I'm seeing on/. is, no offense, "consumer science"-level discussion of these topics that's not only one-sided (even if we're only discussion evolutionary paradigm: there are great chasms between the various competing theories of evolution) but ignorant; and as a biology/pre-med student this disturbs me. Worse, these days you pick-up a bio textbook and the observable science, what we call "science" including observation and data-collection, analysis, repeat...is well-written (sometimes, actually) and fine, but we get to evolution and those sections are full of soft verbs, many "supposes" and "it must be" and "surelies"...and what not: "belief". There is a difference between opperational and historical sciences, but most people aren't well-versed enough or deep-thinkers in such a way to know or to figure this out. "Historical science" is typically fantasy, not objective, and people mistake objectivity and philosophy/ideology quite often.
Typical university-level science is "conservative" in that it's hardly diverse and comprehensive in its discussion of the topics it covers, and they hardly do justice to the what scientists call "the literature". This is a shame because it produces crippled scientists who believe what they're taught is unchallenged. One doesn't need to step-out of evolutionary paradigm or thinking to discover this in the journals...yet there are aweful shortcomings in evolutionary theory its application which it cannot explain: and these are the areas where former evolutionists become ID proponents.
Unfortunately science organizations have made it their purpose, quite often, to starkly defend this or that as dogma when even those in their ranks may disagree...and shockingly we find things like "let's make asses out of them" concerning scientists that dissent. Those who know what I'm talking about aptly title the dissenters the "heretics", in irony. "Science" typically goes through convulsions...take geography for example. If you were a geologist say, 100 years ago, and suggested catastrophism to explain the features of an area, or wider boundaries, you were crucified. Then these people eventually won-out and now geography is full of catastrophism...but instead of calling it "catastrophism" they add "neo" to it in order to try and maintain there's a difference: but there is not, it's mind-games, double-speak, and as biologists say, "weasel words"; we have no problem with "weasel words", we just don't want most people to know. : )~
When you have organizations with massive funding and clout (ha) it's a problem when they target scientist with competing ideas, when they label people with "pseudo" or what not...and I've seen some brave evolutionary biologists come to t
Well...you should look-up your religious studies. Judeo-Christian (Biblical) thought is that the dead sleep...recently some grammar-mods (we'll call them "hacks") have been perpetrated to get the desired meaning out of the text, that a person immediately goes to heaven/hell...though if they claim to Christian then they have this little problem of skipping the judgment to go to either place first. Oops. Therefore you would not experience anything until the ressurection in this train of thought, and so that experience would not be the only thing in the world to go by. Anyways, I'm a Christian, but I'm also working toward a biology/pre-med degree and some minors. I've learned in life not to trust only my own experience and the subjectivity of my own understanding without very full evaluation in the light of criticisms...kind of like how science ought to be perpetrated. But to trust an "experience" you didn't even experience sounds irrational, and frankly unscientific, to me. It's "a+gnostic" ("without"+knowledge") and upon evaluation I cannot conclude it is a good idea...because absence of evidence does not equate with non-existence. There can be lack of evidence, or evidence, but lack of evidence is agnosticism...or it's choosing what evidence to avoid. Whereas "evidence" must be evaluated and applied both for and against assertion to bear upon our evaluations in order to come to a conclusion about the assertion: evidence knows no favor. Lack of evidence is unintelligent. I'm not calling you stupid, by the way...no way (just to make sure I don't offend you). I only wanted to point out a great little principle in reasoning and logic. Take care. : )
P.S. unconsciousness is not a state of death; and flat-lining is not death either...typically we consider full brain-death to be death.
I think you ought to be fair to fellow human-beings and not make accusations without knowing what your talking about. Slashdotters have the propensity, it seems, to malign groups they like to ridicule without having given any serious thought or un-biased thought to them. The way I look at Christians:
They're a Christian if they actually do what they "believe" (i.e. believe the Bible, do good works, the "true religion"-visiting orphans, fatherless, etc.-love their neighbor: though politically incorrect it might be)
They're Christian when they really have real faith.
Read the Bible: not one of those silly ones that publishers produce to merchandise to a trusting and good-natured bunch of folks which just want to read what's Holy to them: the KJV, NKJV, or NASB are all very literal ones. I'd list a bunch of verses, but if you're not open-minded and considerate about your position on who people are and what their beliefs stand for then it wouldn't do any good: if you take the time to actually read and get to understand what is precious to Christians without the intent of putting people down to build your ego you might be a little more appreciative and fair.
I'll list only three references:
Matt 25:41-43
Matthew 22:36-40
James 1:27
As a biologist I'm concerned with the assertions being made: do you understand the current state of Evolutionary Biology, or are you a biologist or a medical scientist or researcher etc.
I don't know, I currently study Biology and over the years I've seen a propensity for people to jump to throwing-in the word "evolution" to describe everything: when, in fact, the word is often used in contexts which aren't connected to the neo-darwinian concept at all though the way it's used is suggestive despite this: especially in microbial resistances since very often the resistance doesn't develop from new materials but rather the bugs either absorb genetic material from other bugs or they lose the ability to metabolize something that's harmful to them through damage. The damage cases are interesting because they rarely really "benefit" the organism since they typically end-up less efficient and easily out-competed by their intact counterparts: however when you kill those off, these guys take [whatever they're resistant to] without a sweat.
Nowadays sensationalists would call this evolution: I'd prefer to be intellectually honest, however: religious fervor to convince the public of something doesn't belong in science, it creates dogma. Scientists are out for the glory and willing to be sensationalistic rather than objective. I think that those initiated recognize how mainstream this is and we're more than a little tired of it: guys like Dawkins, for instance, are great at spreading "consumer science", but his debates are often laughable: if the audiences knew enough to really engage the guy they'd find he's more evasive than knowledgable, and just going to his website the ego is clearly discernable. Perhaps his only relevant book was "The Selfish Gene" but it's little science and lots of philosophy. That the NSF etc. encourages the avoidance of a loaded term is preferable so that when the case for evolution in the neo-darwinian sense is to be made the scientist must be specific and intentional. Otherwise it's often the case that data gets twisted to support the theory and this is not only abnormal and undesirable, but from my point of view it could be dangerous: we use research to develop treatments and direct more research: which will effect lives. It's getting ridiculous to have to sift-through date and try to figure-out if a scientist fudged data to support his conclusions or not. For example, I'm working-out a research project involving nerves and __________ (can't give details) whereby ____ does ______ to them and I'll need to review the research on the cells to get a full grasp at their functions and etc.: if some enthusiast decided to carelessly attribute similarities between process in nerves to another organism I'll end-up wasting time and money (that's hard to obtain) investigating said other organism to use it in research...only to find out it's a waste. : (
That said, I'm not too sorrow that figures like creationists are around: they all too happily point-out mishandling of data and results, (just as evolutionary biologists point-out creationist fall-shorts). They might annoy people, but they do have usefulness: The dichotomy between the groups gets them both looking at one another's work with a weary eye, though it also happens that someone too zealous will accuse without substance to the accusations: thus are rivalries.
Oh yeah, the above is convoluted: I avoided using all the med-speak so that everyone could understand it. I think slashdot has a lot of readers who'd understand it all, but some might not. ; )
Slashdot Mirror
Yea, but here we don't compete with the government, as in countries like Canada, and we don't have lines, nor are we scheduled and forced to wait at the whim of an approved provider: we go where we want. We have a non-socialist system, and yet social help is readily available: I know, it provided me the means to battle cancer; in fact, if your life is threatened, here we do require treatment: if it's not, it's very likely you can get help. And all without mandating much; where they do that, clinics tend to go out of business, as more than a few doctors have told me: and they're not working for bajillions anymore...a lot of them are practically doing charity work, working for beans after having spent their life to get prepared. My grandfather, a doctor, doesn't want me to become one. The U.S. doesn't have a perfect system, but it's got quite a good capital-social balance without needing the government to come in and kill it for everyone; but last time I knew anybody that needed help for anything, they didn't not get it. Politicians calling for universal healthcare don't give a damn: they just want to fatten their voting bases, to the masses of idiots who think it's not going to be them paying for "free" medicine. There's a reason the U.S. leads the world in the medical field...and funds research around the world where they don't have the dough, including Europe. Speaking of funding: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HCXqKEs68Xk&feature=related : ) I'm not a Democrat (or a Republican), and I don't think this alone disqualifies someone from office...but it does show a greater need for scientific literacy, in basic concepts like "model organisms". Personally, a women with a child who has down syndrome should be focusing on the child while it's in its formative years: don't think she realizes that it could need to dominate her time (vs. politics); down kids can actually be trained heavily, and very heavily educated, to the point of near-normalcy, which will save you time in the long run, and otherwise they're just very time-consuming: and often need regularity, and their parents: something politics and Washington cannot provide.
I for one welcome our new remotely controlled monkey-army overlords..and controller.
I don't know about that...maybe some of the appearance of conservatism is changing, or softening perhaps. But I've seen it growing too. Here's an interesting piece from a Commentary Magazine: http://www.commentarymagazine.com/viewarticle.cfm/is-conservatism-finished--10812
It also has interesting political commentary and history about how presidents and politicians have been portrayed by the media throughout the years.
Anytime people start declaring that such and such is dead or over, is a time you're witnessing stupidity...ideologies don't die, and when their impending doom is prophecied the counter-reactions upsurge to prove the prophets to be false, and idiots.
Which wing is which?
Often between countries the right and left wings are opposite...the U.S. president, for instance, is often a "liberal" in other parts of the world!
Well, isn't Canada already very U.S. dependent? As far as I know if the U.S. goes down or up...Canada goes with it. A good (rarely told) look at Canada can be found here: http://www.hillsdale.edu/news/imprimis/archive/issue.asp?year=2008&month=01 Though I do have to say my favorite professor was Canadian. : )
Um, am I the only bio-guy who notices the data showing that CO2 increases preceed temperature rises? If the water in the ocean warms up (whether from the sun...which has been, overall (what about "6 years" of "cooling" gross?), warmer: and all it takes is a few years of higher E-input NET than has been the norm for a while...then the gas solubility decreases (by many magnitudes); thus even if the sun started cooling again it wouldn't matter: the CO2 released would insulate the planet to such an extent that more heat would be trapped and so more E would act upon the water molecules and continue decreasing gas solubility.
The worry-warts aren't worried so much about the planet as grants: and it's easy to play on fears to keep them coming to continue your research (on the side of your sensationalist popular-science career). Anyone who's ever done academic research knows the difficulty of grant-keeping after the difficulty of getting. Trouble is people start to believe their own stories and become religious about them. All the solar planets and bodies evidence warming right now (not just mars). Earth especially because of the systems and feedback mechanisms.
If we're so worried about Carbon emissions we can do two things: first, we can plant a lot more plants; increased carbon emissions induce an explosion of growth in nearby flora so long as other conditions are favorable to plant health: second, we could block the sun: but personally I'm against planetary manipulation in the scale of the planet's cycles; it's a bit like Gene therapy: we thought it was mostly junk until we started killing subjects by putting things into the junk. Science hates to admit ignorance, or to let loose of explanations in favor of admitting its ignorance(even when evidence demands it); just today that came up in genetics.
Who do these Alaskans think they are to have a right to the benefits the natural environment gives even as those dissapear? They have to adapt like anyone else. Obviously there are things in this world which more predatory which unfairly (and often illegally, or at minimum unethically) harm people's livelihoods. But to blame "global warming" and then energy companies for it...grasping. Uh huh: I want these people brought before the courts after this to face charges of abusing the legal system as is happening for the video game guy.
Oh, and here's the wikilinks page on what's going on; this is downright dirty...and personally I don't care for the "Bush appointee" crap (who cares...they're typically respectable candidates; OF COURSE the dems will be pissed, and liberals...and it'll go the other way with the next dem). Anyways, this is worth posting. Now I have my own idea for wiki sites too...hehe. : )
At the risk of being flamed... Like there was the theory of phlogiston, and the theory of geocentric orbit...I remember with amusement listening to the comments of an evolutionary biologist how brain-dead these idiots who go around screaming "the fact of evolution" and the "theory means more than theory in science" sit-down quick comments. (If you didn't catch that "sit down quick"...) He then proceeded to politely state that it showed these mouths were academically inept...they may be trying to combat other academic ineptitude, but nonetheless they're only proving their own, and their own ignorance. And the late trends of justifying a theory's legitimacy for explanatory power only shows historical ignorance: many other dead theories also had significant, and satisfying, explanatory power. It's a bit like scientists railing against religion: they show not sense of nuance or understanding, nor respect: and show their ignorance. There are guys like Richard Dawkins fits here in some categories...but what's interesting about him is that he's a guy who actually goes around saying "of course people should read the bible...especially the KJV...they won't understand culture/history/literature without knowing that", (paraphrasing; i. e. a "cultural" christian, but not a faith-one...not quite right, but okay, at least insightful). And by the way...the theory of gravity isn't so strong...you could propose alternate explanations (they'd be too nuanced for the lay scientist). I'd let you in...but I'm saving it for the nobel. : ) [Just joking]
? what the hell are you complaining about...we don't want people extending ODT but COMPLYING with it! The same with Microsoft: they want...THEIR SOFTWARE TO KEEP WORKING WITH ANYTHING LABELLED UNDER THEIR SPEC! DUH. If you change it up, you'd have to change your file and make sure it doesn't say ".doc" or any bull like that. Sheesh. The only reason I sound pissy is this seems like one of those ill-thought comments aiming to attack the big, bad, ogre. When Microsoft tries to pull unethical crap...then complain. But don't complain about something reasonable. Wouldn't you guys be pissed to get an important "opendocument" file and discover someone decided to "extend" it so that you couldn't open it, or open it right?
I don't know if this in the above posts...there are too many to check every one. But here are three ways to reach wikilinks: 1) The IP:' http://88.80.13.160/wiki/Wikileaks 2) The Belgium Site: http://www.wikileaks.be/wiki/Wikileaks 3) I forget this domain's country: http://wikileaks.cx/wiki/Wikileaks And all are in english. Blog this overreaching of a judge's power, and post these links on your blogs! (Just maybe not on U. S. servers...). : )
Well... When the "new technology" takes more energy to produce it than it saves...sadly there's a little rule that applies: to get energy you lose some. Remember the quacks saying "free energy". There's something like it, but it takes energy to make...it's called fossil fuels. The only diff is we didn't make it; compression by the earth upon certain materials did. Anyways, there's a little-known piece to this globabl-warming puzzle; besides the fact that the other plantes (like Mars) are getting warmer (and sure...you could find other explanations....uh huh) and besides the fact that the earth is actually in an up-swing from being in a low point (I know, I know, the skeptics always remind us of the "global cooling" scare...but before it was on radio, I remember the older folks talking about that one), beside the agricultural data around the globe suggests that colder regions used to be much warmer...the CO2 levels are PRECEEDED by the temperature rise in the oceans. :) The best part about this is that it's basic chemistry: gas solubility in aqueous solution decrease with rise in temperature for [most] gases; I say "most" because...there *could* be a freak gas or two just as there are freak solids that don't obey solid solubility rules. We are definately NOT heating the oceans...we can greatly affect the air: air is easy to heat...but masses of water are not. The Sun, however, is heating-up: and as climatologists explain-away those changes as "too minute" they also forget to mention (unless they just don't know) how tiny changes in a system can produce massive changes. This I appreciate more because of cell biology (bio major) than environmental sciences but I find it more and more applicable to environmental systems.
Anyways, I remember when one climate scientist changed his mind on global warming how he received death threats...at my university we have a skeptic too: and he doesn't passionately dogmatize on this subject with religious zeal like the fanatics either; he just looks at data and says "so it's saying...". .There's also a lab where they monitor how much light we receive every year and the angle and intensities...around the world (it's very interesting stuff: they collect several gigs of data a year from the collectors) and I know a guy who does this kind of work and who is working on using satellites for monitoring/recording/testing this kind of stuff. So before I listen to those who have their life's work and passions invested in all this...I'll go to the guys who actually collect the data with detachment from their emotions...and who aren't looking for the grant money popular "science" might bring them. : ) Cheers and flame away.
Despite the mainstream Media's reports, we're not in a recession in the U. S., however the real-estate market bubble is deflating after years of artificially controlled interest rates; they call it a "credit crunch" here, but it's not exactly true: the market was awash in too many loans, and too many unscrupulous characters too eager to loan money (even violating laws). I know this because of family in the mortgage business (happily they themselves would block and fight illegal, destructive, take-advantage-of-people loans, but they saw too many others going around). Now, however, people are stuck in houses with the value falling because of the real-estate bubble that jacked-up the values of the properties, sitting on loans they can't afford to pay, and they want out. Insurance companies note that in these kinds of conditions pertaining to real-estate that arson claims rise...and a lot of fraud is initiated; the cases of fraud have already begun to set-in, though comically fraudsters often don't realize that the mortgage company gets the first go at any insurance money they get...if the companies don't figure it out. [mocking here.] Then IF there is ANY left...they get that. Thus I wonder if this has anything to do with this...are these people with mortgages and failing business models, or can they documentarily prove that these machines went boom? I know laptops have been caught before...and Dell wouldn't suprise me here (my laptop from Dell has 6 fans and still overheats...it takes FREEZING air sucking-in to the intakes to cool it). If any are in bum circumstances and some of these cases are true, I wonder if some will try to replicate these cases to make claims? Then go after the computer makers while they're at it. Who knows more?
VBA is a highly used language (as you know) so that this isn't a small thing. In business school MS products are praised and exalted. Programmers curse it...forgetting that the point is CEOs, not technicians; this keeps MS ahead. I constantly hear people complain how one is able to do one thing 10 different ways...but in business they LOVE this; LOVE LOVE LOVE this.
This move isn't so stupid, however, because too many companies are dependent on this language and MS products. What it's really doing, though, is shooting Apple in the foot: MS was going to drop Apple support for office but Apple begged and worked-out an extension. This will remove the possibility for many businesses who stick with office to utilize Mac as a platform; especially since other businesses are unlikely to support a house with applescript on Office.
If MS drops VBA it's because they feel they have something better to offer...possibly something worth more to programmers while they're at it; don't forget that whole businesses do nothing but write macros and VBA-based software; I know several guys who do this.
In the meantime OpenOffice ought to start reverse-engineering VBA, I think; if it's going to die then we won't have to worry about it changing...and a LOT of firms would probably, very likely, appreciate not losing years of work, (or being able to offer it on practically any platform AND advertise that they're giving-away a compatible office suite!), though maybe MS's new tools will have migration features/assistance to translate. Anyone know?
First...if I mucked-up a guy's verbiage I apologize: not improbable. Second: the oldest written hebrew isn't in Aramaic Script (what you'd see in a Torah Scroll in Synagogues), but a more ancient form of paleo-Hebrew, though it's aleph-bet like Aramaic Square Scriipt. This form is present in the Samaritan Pentateuch...unfortunately their Pentateuch wasn't carefully copied, either, but that's a textual aside: it's the script that's important for our consideration of age. Some of the oldest portions of the OT extant are inscriptions on alters...one even surrounded by a burial-ground of animal skeletons (sacrifices) and egyptian scarabs. The Historical Books (Chronicles, Kings, etc.) are also archeologically precise as well and significant which suggests contemporary writing. The Book Daniel is a good example of a writing contemporary with Cyrus the Great (see "Stele of Cyrus") and the Hebrew in the Pentateuch is a purer, but less versatile/more rigid form than the books which would have been written post-exile...which differ in Hebrew style, morphology, lexical use, and etc...the grammar is affected by Aramaic there, and there are many aramaicisms (with few if, arguably, any in the pre-exhilic OT). Further, the OT written during the time of Exile consists of portions of Daniel in ARAMAIC, while portions of the Prophets are all Hebrew (there were still Jews in Jerusalem under the rule of vassal kings) but addressed to even those Jews in Babylon. Post-exhilic texts are quite interesting since writers such as Isaiah write in a lofty and high literary style yet utilize Aramaic expressions so meaningfully: such a writer shows great literary ability in the Hebrew yet knowing his audience is writing, also, for them.
Two things: If you're referring to the Hebrew and Aramaic, then that's upwards of 5/6000 years ago. It used to be that since "Christianity" was such a hot topic this dating would be denied...this is changing (I go to a public, highly secular, university and have learned that historians are verifying the Bible as incresingly valid as a Historical document for many things, just as any other ancient documents is used). The Hebrew/Aramaic is also highly structured and often beautifully executed: it's chock-full of literary devices, assonnance, consanance, and etc...it reads beautifully (have a Jews fluent in BIBLICAL Hebrew/Aramaic read it to you sometime as lit), hidden message (God's name hidden with exact spacing between each letter in the book of Esther which does not mention Him up-front is one example...and this is not only structured, but strategic, the Name being forward after actions by Jews, and backwards after actions by gentiles). The reason I even mention this is because you had the "3000" years thing. More likely, though, you refer to the NT. Well...that too bears the mark of Hebrew literature. Even the rather colloquial (in Greek) gospels are structured around themes and make allusions to the Hebrew scriptues and constant use of literary features...and I don't suggest the intent is to be "just literature"; to them it's literature just as the journals are literature to scientists, the newspaper of the social/human condition at present, as well as the speech which itself utilizes structure and literary device; term papers do too. The difference is that the Bible's is on another level, and it's intended: it's often so complex that it's mind-boggling, and it's a treat to study if you're into literature. More than that, though, these "simple" fishermen and shepherds...would have probably committed the entire Hebrew OT as well as their trade and the inherent complexities in life back then to memory by the time they were 16. Some parts of the NT are apparently not understood by today's readers because an OT quote will be made but not all of it...the Jews would leave-off and let the listener's minds fill-in the rest. It was, for a long time, though that the Jews of early NT times were nearly wholly illiterate in Hebrew...but now we're learning this is a misapprehension; and besides, the non-Hebrew speakers would have known the Septuagint translation anyways. To put it lightly: these weren't, necessary, mental-simpletons: Romans, for instance, is a book which Greek-experts world-wide grapple with because of its complexity, illusions, metaphors, train of though, layering, and so on...the tiny letter "Jude" is itself full of allusions to literature, Jewish History, and more, so that its signification requires extensive familiarity and understanding to grasp. Now believe it or not: my major is biology, my minor is...too minor to remember, just one extra class, and my other minor is spanish: my side-classes are all the courses I have for pre-med, however my hobby is studying just about everything, especially relating to ideologies, religion, history, linguistics & languages, and literature (which I wish text-critics in all fields would learn more of so they wouldn't naively strike-out literary features when they think they're just merely repetition or something). Hope this helps. : )
That would be Catholicism: the term "priest" is a technical term from the OT applying to a certain tribe (Levites) while the NT takes this technical term and applies it to all believers in Jesus. Catholicism takes the Bible and trumps it with its own teachings: it has no need of Scriptures: it writes its own. Meanwhile the NT itself commends those who didn't blindly accept the teachings of some preacher, which amongst the Biblically-literate is calling "being Berean", because Paul wrote that the Bereans were "more noble" because they checked the scriptures everday to see if the things he said were so: this is what I call being accountable to your premise, and it requries consistancy. It's conflation to say Catholics (to whom your statements allude/refer) have any fear of discrediting the Bible when they don't even read it, and even arrogantly claim it's God's Word, yet then that men's words can trump it; take it from a guy with an Irish-Catholic family-background. I'm amazed at the contemporary religious and scientific ignorance of our day; and saddened by the attitude of learning only until satisfaction whether or not one's understanding is whole, accurate, or even understanding: people believe what they want to push what they want by twising, conflating, and dropping whatever information they want. Sheesh. : (
I thought this was interesting since wasn't Harvard originally created to educated Preachers so they wouldn't be uneducated? I believe it originally had entrance requirements of ability to read Greek and Latin (the second since studyign latin is extremely helpful to studying Greek and vice-versa). I didn't think the comment (that I'm replying to) was insightful, helpful, or even very funny (try again), but what it touched on is some irony. (Since Harvard was considered a failure from the beginning they founded Yale...which has never let Harvard forget it.) By the way, you used "immaculate" adjectively toward "editing" while the usual and proper use of the term in "conception" is a Catholic dogma and tradition which claims mary herself was "immaculate" at the conception, meaning that by giving birth to the divine she must be "sinless"; nevermind that this is theological naive or scripturally iconsistant, though I intent no offense to Rome...it's an old dogma, "Mary the Mother of God" that'll probably never died which developed around the same time as "James the Brother of God" as emphasizing "brother" amongst soem groups: the second died-out, the first became strengthened even to claim that Mary was perpetually a virgin after the birth...although show a Catholic the second historical statement and they might freak, kill you, announce your excommunication, or refuse to speak to you...or pray for your ignorance as a friend of theirs hoping you'll see the light of Rome. Ick.
First I'd like to apologize: this is my third comment on this post. Second: no offense, but that's a lame statement. Scientists borrow representations from one another all the time...so does media. This video is taken, re-edited, and applied in various courses and disciplines all the time as well. It also permits, by its license, educational use: and it was a presentation at a university organized by a student-group. I don't know enough about DI to dicuss their merits or pitfalls, but nevertheless I've seen this video around for a little over a year now and have never seen anyone get attacked for use until this controversial group used it in a standard presentation...to an unsympathetic audience no less. My major is biology, but I'm a guy considering such polemical rhetoric against those who disagree (however ignorant or idiotic they're perceived to be) as represented in the comments on this post and the blog it refers to as a good reason to switch BACK to business...at least there there's (sometimes) some remnants of professionalism (unless you're Jobs--though Macs themselves do rock). The representation of this piece of art is that of standard knowledge: I would have been more concerned if they'd misrepresented Harvard by leaving the logo/narrations intact: which I've never seen even in evolution, genetics, or physiology. So everyone: no grasping just to get kicks to attack somebody. Discourse rationally and with respect.
This particular instance of dubbing wouldn't count as misrepresentation. First, the DI guys aren't wholly idiots, just very disliked and diasgreed with. Second, this would count as two things: pointing-out particulars that the Harvard group may have, or may not have, pointed out, and then as interpretation: yet I don't even know that they contradicted the other group: this particular video has been popular in anything science-related since its release and though I've never watched the full thing I've seen in used in several presentations at my University.
Actually I the blog this post links to has some comments on this: it is an educational event...whether or not people like the kind of education. The material was also posted freely, not sold: and I've also seen this video used in my University courses: it's fairly helpful for certain topics in classes such as physiology. Yes, they can claim this to be "educational": lol or not. Other than that the video can be found here: http://www.studiodaily.com/main/searchlist/6850.html Enjoy. : )
I'm grateful for your statements about "belief" in science, although there are presupositions in many parts of it which are often unavoidable (it seems).
/. is, no offense, "consumer science"-level discussion of these topics that's not only one-sided (even if we're only discussion evolutionary paradigm: there are great chasms between the various competing theories of evolution) but ignorant; and as a biology/pre-med student this disturbs me. Worse, these days you pick-up a bio textbook and the observable science, what we call "science" including observation and data-collection, analysis, repeat...is well-written (sometimes, actually) and fine, but we get to evolution and those sections are full of soft verbs, many "supposes" and "it must be" and "surelies"...and what not: "belief". There is a difference between opperational and historical sciences, but most people aren't well-versed enough or deep-thinkers in such a way to know or to figure this out. "Historical science" is typically fantasy, not objective, and people mistake objectivity and philosophy/ideology quite often.
Careful, though...even in the scientific literature, evolution is not an "incontrovertible fact". In fact, is heatedly debated...and all the "ID is this or that" tit-for-tat I see here is dismissable...some of the ID proponents were formerly some of the starkest defenders of evolution: one of them men considered "the" defender was a man who spent his life trying to refine a way proteins could form in the absence of molecular machines and all the processes and steps required in a cell for the most basic constituents of life.
Today consumers get sterile, pathetic, version of these things presented as hammered-out truth, brilliantly presented I might add, but hardly worthy of any real place of discussion in the scientific community: and even among evolutionary biologists there are many people anymore who don't really "believe" in evolution...they just have no other explanation. Further, ID has its merits in explanation just as evolution, some argue more merits...and typically such scientists who propose such are under much greater scrutiny and have to have impeccable method to get by without character assasination.
The point is, well, what I'm seeing on
Typical university-level science is "conservative" in that it's hardly diverse and comprehensive in its discussion of the topics it covers, and they hardly do justice to the what scientists call "the literature". This is a shame because it produces crippled scientists who believe what they're taught is unchallenged. One doesn't need to step-out of evolutionary paradigm or thinking to discover this in the journals...yet there are aweful shortcomings in evolutionary theory its application which it cannot explain: and these are the areas where former evolutionists become ID proponents.
Unfortunately science organizations have made it their purpose, quite often, to starkly defend this or that as dogma when even those in their ranks may disagree...and shockingly we find things like "let's make asses out of them" concerning scientists that dissent. Those who know what I'm talking about aptly title the dissenters the "heretics", in irony. "Science" typically goes through convulsions...take geography for example. If you were a geologist say, 100 years ago, and suggested catastrophism to explain the features of an area, or wider boundaries, you were crucified. Then these people eventually won-out and now geography is full of catastrophism...but instead of calling it "catastrophism" they add "neo" to it in order to try and maintain there's a difference: but there is not, it's mind-games, double-speak, and as biologists say, "weasel words"; we have no problem with "weasel words", we just don't want most people to know. : )~
When you have organizations with massive funding and clout (ha) it's a problem when they target scientist with competing ideas, when they label people with "pseudo" or what not...and I've seen some brave evolutionary biologists come to t
Well...you should look-up your religious studies. Judeo-Christian (Biblical) thought is that the dead sleep...recently some grammar-mods (we'll call them "hacks") have been perpetrated to get the desired meaning out of the text, that a person immediately goes to heaven/hell...though if they claim to Christian then they have this little problem of skipping the judgment to go to either place first. Oops.
Therefore you would not experience anything until the ressurection in this train of thought, and so that experience would not be the only thing in the world to go by.
Anyways, I'm a Christian, but I'm also working toward a biology/pre-med degree and some minors. I've learned in life not to trust only my own experience and the subjectivity of my own understanding without very full evaluation in the light of criticisms...kind of like how science ought to be perpetrated. But to trust an "experience" you didn't even experience sounds irrational, and frankly unscientific, to me. It's "a+gnostic" ("without"+knowledge") and upon evaluation I cannot conclude it is a good idea...because absence of evidence does not equate with non-existence. There can be lack of evidence, or evidence, but lack of evidence is agnosticism...or it's choosing what evidence to avoid. Whereas "evidence" must be evaluated and applied both for and against assertion to bear upon our evaluations in order to come to a conclusion about the assertion: evidence knows no favor. Lack of evidence is unintelligent.
I'm not calling you stupid, by the way...no way (just to make sure I don't offend you). I only wanted to point out a great little principle in reasoning and logic. Take care. : )
P.S. unconsciousness is not a state of death; and flat-lining is not death either...typically we consider full brain-death to be death.
I think you ought to be fair to fellow human-beings and not make accusations without knowing what your talking about. Slashdotters have the propensity, it seems, to malign groups they like to ridicule without having given any serious thought or un-biased thought to them. The way I look at Christians: They're a Christian if they actually do what they "believe" (i.e. believe the Bible, do good works, the "true religion"-visiting orphans, fatherless, etc.-love their neighbor: though politically incorrect it might be) They're Christian when they really have real faith. Read the Bible: not one of those silly ones that publishers produce to merchandise to a trusting and good-natured bunch of folks which just want to read what's Holy to them: the KJV, NKJV, or NASB are all very literal ones. I'd list a bunch of verses, but if you're not open-minded and considerate about your position on who people are and what their beliefs stand for then it wouldn't do any good: if you take the time to actually read and get to understand what is precious to Christians without the intent of putting people down to build your ego you might be a little more appreciative and fair. I'll list only three references: Matt 25:41-43 Matthew 22:36-40 James 1:27
As a biologist I'm concerned with the assertions being made: do you understand the current state of Evolutionary Biology, or are you a biologist or a medical scientist or researcher etc.
I don't know, I currently study Biology and over the years I've seen a propensity for people to jump to throwing-in the word "evolution" to describe everything: when, in fact, the word is often used in contexts which aren't connected to the neo-darwinian concept at all though the way it's used is suggestive despite this: especially in microbial resistances since very often the resistance doesn't develop from new materials but rather the bugs either absorb genetic material from other bugs or they lose the ability to metabolize something that's harmful to them through damage. The damage cases are interesting because they rarely really "benefit" the organism since they typically end-up less efficient and easily out-competed by their intact counterparts: however when you kill those off, these guys take [whatever they're resistant to] without a sweat. Nowadays sensationalists would call this evolution: I'd prefer to be intellectually honest, however: religious fervor to convince the public of something doesn't belong in science, it creates dogma. Scientists are out for the glory and willing to be sensationalistic rather than objective. I think that those initiated recognize how mainstream this is and we're more than a little tired of it: guys like Dawkins, for instance, are great at spreading "consumer science", but his debates are often laughable: if the audiences knew enough to really engage the guy they'd find he's more evasive than knowledgable, and just going to his website the ego is clearly discernable. Perhaps his only relevant book was "The Selfish Gene" but it's little science and lots of philosophy. That the NSF etc. encourages the avoidance of a loaded term is preferable so that when the case for evolution in the neo-darwinian sense is to be made the scientist must be specific and intentional. Otherwise it's often the case that data gets twisted to support the theory and this is not only abnormal and undesirable, but from my point of view it could be dangerous: we use research to develop treatments and direct more research: which will effect lives. It's getting ridiculous to have to sift-through date and try to figure-out if a scientist fudged data to support his conclusions or not. For example, I'm working-out a research project involving nerves and __________ (can't give details) whereby ____ does ______ to them and I'll need to review the research on the cells to get a full grasp at their functions and etc.: if some enthusiast decided to carelessly attribute similarities between process in nerves to another organism I'll end-up wasting time and money (that's hard to obtain) investigating said other organism to use it in research...only to find out it's a waste. : ( That said, I'm not too sorrow that figures like creationists are around: they all too happily point-out mishandling of data and results, (just as evolutionary biologists point-out creationist fall-shorts). They might annoy people, but they do have usefulness: The dichotomy between the groups gets them both looking at one another's work with a weary eye, though it also happens that someone too zealous will accuse without substance to the accusations: thus are rivalries. Oh yeah, the above is convoluted: I avoided using all the med-speak so that everyone could understand it. I think slashdot has a lot of readers who'd understand it all, but some might not. ; )